Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
pcheung(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From pcheung(a)redhat.com 2007-03-16 16:50 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
...
Yeah, I don't know what is causing the 6 hour time stamp
difference between the
two, this shouldn't be an issue since all the code is the same. I have updated
the sources so this should not be an issue anymore.
Great!
> X keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too
old?
> useless?)
> should we get rid of the old changelog entries since this is now a new
> package and some of those may only apply to xml-commons-apis?
Ok, I removed them. Since I based this off the xml-commons package which is
split up I kept the old changelogs, but I guess this doesn't make much sense.
Thanks.
> X file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
> - do we need %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) twice in the first %files section?
The second one is removed.
OK
> X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> rpmlint on mock built rpms:
>
> Please fix the incoherent-version-in-changelog warning (first .1 missing in
release)
Done
Great!
rpmlint on mock built binary rpms:
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-*
W: xml-commons-which non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xml-commons-which non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xml-commons-which-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.